[R-G] The Euston Manifesto: Made in the USA?

[Anthony Fenton]

The Euston Manifesto: Made in the USA?
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/5018/8/
Tom Griffin, 13 June 2008

The Euston Manifesto is a declaration published by a group of British  
intellectuals in 2006, chiefly notable for its staunch support of  
American foreign policy. There is little original about this  
development, except its choice of targets. It represents an  
application of cold war propaganda techniques to the new circumstances  
of the war on terror.

  “there was a meeting in a pub in London”

According to its authors, the manifesto takes its name from a pub in  
Euston where some 20 people met after the June 2005 election. Finding  
themselves  “increasingly out of tune with the dominant anti-war  
discourse”, the group held several further meetings and ultimately  
drew up the manifesto which was published in the New Statesman in 2006. 
[1]
A public launch took place a month later at the Union Chapel in  
Islington, where journalist Nick Cohen chaired a panel consisting of  
Norman Geras, Shalom Lappin, Eve Garrard and Alan Johnson. One account  
of the meeting described “an audience of around 200 that was  
disproportionately heavy with suited, middle-aged men.”[2]

  Cohen made it clear from the start that he wanted the meeting to be  
about the top table. He told us that any audience participation should  
be limited to questions to the platform, “not 10-minute contributions”  
outlining the political platform of some obscure sect.[3]

Made in the USA

 From the beginning, there were those who saw a deeper story behind  
the manifesto’s emergence on the British scene:

take another look at that Manifesto website and this time notice the  
background art in the masthead. Those cursives and serifs come not  
from Richard Overton's An Arrow Against all Tyrants, or John Lilburne,  
Gerard Winstanley or even a transatlantic radical like Tom Paine, but,  
as every American schoolboy knows, from our Declaration of  
Independence. The final deception is that despite its debut on the  
pages of your own New Statesman, and its supposed humble origins "at a  
pub near Euston Station" this project, whose politics and  
personalities have been shaped far more by the crew at Dissent  
magazine (and which shares Dissent founder Irving Howe's fixation on  
the mote in the eyes of the left rather than the beam blinding  
American foreign policy) than anything native to these shores, really  
ought to be stamped Made in the USA.[4]

For a British initiative, the manifesto made a remarkably swift impact  
across the Atlantic. Writing in the Weekly Standard, leading  
neoconservative activist, William Kristol welcomed ‘an impressive  
document’ that ‘articulates 15 principles reminiscent of the much- 
missed liberal anti-totalitarianism of the early Cold War period.’[5]

The CIA and the Non-Communist Left

Kristol was well-placed to make this illuminating comment. In the  
1950s his father, Irving Kristol, was at the centre of ‘liberal anti- 
totalitarianism’ as an editor of Encounter, the London-based magazine  
of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF).[6] It is now well  
established that the CCF was a creation of the CIA, part of a strategy  
to sponsor the non-communist left as a counter to Soviet influence.  
Key figures were ex-communists like the philosopher Sidney Hook, who  
were prepared to denounce the use of front organisations by the  
Communist Party, while nevertheless using similar tactics for their  
new employers.

The Congress attained significant influence on the European left, not  
least in Britain, so controversy was inevitable when its CIA funding  
was exposed in 1967. Strangely, much of the detail was revealed in an  
article by Tom Braden, the former head of the CIA’s International  
Organizations Division. This has led to suggestions that the Agency  
deliberately blew the operation to terminate its relationship with its  
allies on the left.[7]

In the face of the growing anti-Vietnam movement these ‘cold war  
liberals’ were becoming increasingly isolated. In the early 1970s,  
they coalesced around Democrat Senator Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, the  
first stage of a rightward shift that would see many of them moving,  
under the label ‘neoconservatives’, towards the Republican Party.

Social Democrats USA

For Sidney Hook and others, the vehicle for this shift was the Social  
Democrats USA, a political party founded in 1972.[8] Despite strong  
ties to organised labour and initially to the Democratic Party, the  
Social Democrats provided a number of appointees to the Reagan  
administration, many of whom were particularly identified with  
Reagan’s Central American policy.  They included the US Ambassador to  
the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams, a central  
figure in the Iran-Contra scandal.[9] The ultimate symbol of the  
party’s political journey came in 1985 when Reagan awarded Sidney Hook  
the Presidential medal of freedom.[10]

The Social Democrats did not enjoy the same favour in the George H.W.  
Bush administration, but retained a key powerbase in the National  
Endowment for Democracy (NED). Founded under Reagan in 1982, the NED  
funded favoured political and cultural activities abroad, doing openly  
what the CIA had done covertly through the CCF.[11] Carl Gershman, a  
former chairman of the Social Democrats, has been the NED President  
since 1984.[12]

New recruits

The Social Democrats returned to prominence with the advent of the  
neoconservative ascendancy in the George W. Bush administration.  In  
May 2003, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, the party held a  
Washington conference entitled Everything Changed: What Now for Labor,  
Liberalism and the Global Left?[13]

The event was chiefly noted at the time for a spat between the liberal  
writer Paul Berman and the prominent neoconservative Joshua Muravchik,  
sparked by Muravchik’s comment that “I want to welcome Paul Berman on  
board. It seems that in every big conflict we reap some important new  
recruits. In the wars of Central America, we reaped the Radoshes and  
the Leikens. There were some more after Bosnia. Now the war against  
terrorism has brought us Hitchens and Berman -- very nice indeed.”[14]

Among those present at the conference was one of those previous  
recruits, Robert Leiken, a prominent supporter of the Nicaraguan  
contras in the 1980s.[15] He chaired a panel on ‘Europe, the Left and  
Anti-Americanism’, which considered the wave of opposition that the  
Iraq War had aroused across the Atlantic.

A central question for our next panel might be summarized this way:  
what role did the European left play in encouraging the strident  
attacks on the United States that have been mounted in Europe and  
elsewhere over the past year or so?

A second issue might this: In the years following World War II, when  
Stalin's army was in Eastern Europe and Stalinist parties seemed on  
the verge of coming to power in Western Europe, American and European  
intellectuals and sections of the labor movement rallied to found such  
institutions as the Congress for Cultural Freedom and Encounter  
magazine. Is such a grouping conceivable today? [16]

Leiken was followed by Andrei Markovits, a Professor at the University  
of Michigan who has specialised in studying European Anti-Americanism,  
and then by Jeffrey Herf, a Professor at the University of Maryland  
who had written a 1991 study on West German opposition to the  
deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.[17]

The final speaker of the session was a British fellow at the National  
Endowment for Democracy named Michael Allen who extended Leiken’s  
analysis:



I want to make three key points. First, the anti-Americanism that  
we've seen on the European left is itself a symptom of the degree of  
ideological confusion and the strategic dead end that European social  
democracy finds itself in. Second, as Bob Leiken suggested, the  
situation is uncannily analogous to the late 1940s and early 1950s, in  
that uncomfortably large sectors of the left have a degree of  
intellectual infatuation with authoritarian and incipiently  
totalitarian ideologies. Third, organized labor must be a key  
component of any intellectual and political response to the situation  
we find ourselves in.[18]

Allen went on to reiterate the call for a new Congress for Cultural  
Freedom:



It's important that center-left initiatives avoid sectarianism. We  
need to engage, as the Congress of Cultural Freedom and other  
initiatives did, with democrats on the right, in the center, on the  
liberal left. Remember how the Congress for Cultural Freedom brought  
together Sidney Hook and Raymond Aron and Edward Shils and Isaiah  
Berlin. We need to make common cause today with those people who may  
not share all of our philosophies. I think this is particularly the  
case in countries like France, where there's still a disturbingly  
strong residue of Marxism and anti-Americanism.

Irving Kristol once said that when intellectuals decide that they need  
to act, they set up a magazine. Today, of course, whenever anybody  
wants to have an impact on the real world they start a web site. That  
could be one important first step.[19]

Democratiya

Two years later, Allen wrote for the inaugural edition of Democratiya,  
a British online magazine with a very similar analysis to the one  
outlined at the Washington conference. Ironically, his piece dismissed  
the idea that ‘an umbilical link exists between the anti-communist  
Left and contemporary neo-conservatism.’[20]

Later editions of Democratiya included articles by Herf, Markovits and  
others close to the Social Democrats USA, such as Eugenia Kemble,  
Rachelle Horowitz and Barry Rubin.[21] There were interviews with  
Joshua Muravchik and Paul Berman, and even posthumous contributions  
from leading Social Democrats including Sidney Hook himself.[22]

This was a significant departure for Democratiya’s editor, Alan  
Johnson, who had written only a few years earlier that Hook ‘began by  
speaking eloquently of truth and beauty but ended up receiving the  
Medal of Honor from Ronald Reagan as a reward for dressing up the  
Contra butchers as freedom fighters.’[23]

Johnson would go on to become one of the authors of the Euston  
Manifesto along with other Democratiya contributors such as Norman  
Geras, Nick Cohen, Shalom Lappin and Brian Brivati.[24]

“The reconfiguration of progressive opinion”

The Democratiya link between this group and the Social Democrats USA  
suggests that Irving Kristol was right to see the manifesto’s  
antecedents in the cold war.  It also raises the question whether the  
Manifesto is an attempt to answer the Social Democrats’ call for a new  
Congress for Cultural Freedom.

One way to address that question is to compare the methodologies of  
the CCF and the Euston Manifesto Group. In her invaluable study of the  
CCF, Frances Stonor Saunders, describes its role as follows:

It was to engage in a widespread and cohesive campaign of peer  
pressure to persuade intellectuals to dissociate themselves from  
Communist fronts or fellow travelling organizations. It was to  
encourage the intelligentsia to develop theories and arguments which  
directed not at a mass audience, but at that small elite of pressure  
groups and statesmen who in turn determined government policy.[25]

The preamble to the Euston Manifesto displays a very similar  
preoccupation with policing respectable opinion:

Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are  
not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards  
egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment.  
Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for  
involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain  
true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown  
themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making  
common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.[26]

This does not preclude some room for disagreement:

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the  
military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that  
it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the  
intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning  
(or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the  
successful implementation of democratic change. [27]

Such carefully circumscribed debates were explicitly provided for in  
the ground rules laid down by Tom Braden for the CIA-sponsored non- 
communist left in the 1950s:

‘Limit the money to amounts private organizations can credibly spend;  
disguise the extent of American interest; protect the integrity of the  
organization by not requiring it to support every aspect of official  
American policy.’[28]

“Backstopping for the European Effort”

One way in which the Congress for Cultural Freedom disguised the  
extent of American interest was by establishing its own American arm  
as a kind of double bluff. According to the CIA’s Frank Wisner, the  
American Committee for Cultural Freedom was ‘inspired if not put  
together by this Agency, for the purpose of providing cover and  
backstopping for the European effort.’[29]

“You had to have an American Committee.” The CCF’s Melvin Lasky told  
Stonor Saunders. “How could you not? It would have been an  
inexplicable anomaly. You say you’re international so where are the  
Americans?”[30]

In the light of this history, it is interesting that an American  
counterpart to the Euston Manifesto appeared in September 2006, only a  
few months after the original.[31] Jeffrey Herf gave an account of its  
creation which emphasised its European inspiration:

In late summer, the Euston Manifesto group in London helped to put the  
American signers of the statement in touch with one another via e- 
mail. I wrote a draft of an American liberal's response. Following  
several weeks of discussion with Russell Berman (Stanford), Thomas  
Cushman (Wellesley), Richard Just (The New Republic), Andrei Markovits  
(University of Michigan), Robert Lieber (Georgetown), and Fred Siegel  
(Cooper Union), we agreed on the revised text of "American Liberalism  
and the Euston Manifesto." We then sought support from prominent  
intellectuals and scholars. The Euston Manifesto group agreed to post  
it on its website.[32]

Herf had of course met Andrei Markovits three years earlier, when they  
had both been panelists at the Social Democrats USA conference along  
with Robert Leiken and Michael Allen, who also signed the American  
statement. Many of the other American signatories came from the same  
milieu. Prominent neoconservatives included Michael Ledeen, a central  
player in the Iran-Contra affair.[33] At least one, Eliot Cohen, had  
served in the Bush administration, while others like Will Marshall are  
associated with the most hawkish section of the Democratic Party.[34]  
With Daniel Bell and Walter Laquer, the Euston Manifesto United States  
could even claim two veterans of the original CCF.[35]

All of this suggests that the Euston Manifesto is best seen not so  
much as a spontaneous movement of British intellectuals, but as an  
offshoot of a transnational movement whose centre of gravity is in the  
United States. Its specific role is influencing British opinion on the  
War on Terror, in the same way that the CCF and Encounter magazine  
influenced opinion during the Cold War.

State-private networks

There is no direct evidence that the Euston Manifesto is state- 
sponsored in the way that the CCF was. It is perhaps best understood  
through concepts such as that of the state-private network, applied to  
the non-communist left of the 1950s by Hugh Wilford, and of the ‘flex  
group’ applied by Janine Wedel to the contemporary neoconservative  
movement.[36]

  In Wedel’s conception, flex groups are characterised by “their ease  
in playing multiple and overlapping roles and conflating state and  
private interests. These players keep appearing in different  
incarnations, ensuring continuity even as their operating environments  
change.”[37]

Flex players are not necessarily engaged in unethical activity, but  
they always help each other out in furthering their careers,  
livelihoods and mutual aims. Even when some players are "in power"  
within an administration, they are flanked by people outside of formal  
government. Flex groups have a culture of circumventing authorities  
and creating alternative ones. They operate through semi-closed  
networks and penetrate key institutions, revamping them to marginalize  
other potential players and replacing them with initiatives under  
their control.[38]

Michael Allen provides a good example how state and private  
connections overlap amongst the members of such networks. As well as  
speaking at the Social Democrats USA conference, Allen wrote for  
Democratiya, and signed the British and American editions of the  
Euston Manifesto. He is also an official of the National Endowment for  
Democracy, and edits Democracy Digest, the magazine of its  
Transatlantic Democracy Network. [39]

The Israeli dimension

While the US is clearly the key hub in this network, there are other  
dimensions. one of these is support for Israel, reflected in the  
Manifesto’s hostility to ‘anti-zionism’, which it states “has now  
developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are  
willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form  
alliances with anti-Semitic groups.”[40]

DD Guttenplan described the Manifesto as “an alliance between anti- 
anti-Zionists and anti-anti-imperialists.”

Some of the signers are well-known - even distinguished - advocates  
for Israel. Anthony Julius, for example, has never previously shown a  
penchant for sectarian struggle (or much enthusiasm for the left in  
general, for that matter). Others come out of Engage, originally  
formed to oppose the Association of University Teachers' boycott of  
Israel, now a self-appointed scourge of anti-Semitism on the left.[41]

Although himself an opponent of the boycott, Guttenplan suggested that  
Engage was part of “an already overweening, powerful pro-Israel lobby  
whose aggressive policing of acceptable opinion has done more to  
poison intellectual debate on Israel and Palestine than a dozen  
boycott motions.”

A number of the signatories of the American manifesto have links with  
the Washington Israel lobby. One example is the Jewish Institute for  
National Security Affairs (JINSA) which has played an important role  
in the interaction between neoconservatives and major defence  
contractors since its foundation in 1976.[42] Joshua Muravchik,  
Michael Ledeen and Peter Rosenblatt sit on JINSA’s advisory board  
alongside former Bush administration luminaries like Richard Perle and  
John Bolton.[43]  Others such as New Republic editor Martin Peretz are  
associated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP),  
a think-tank spun off from the American Israel Public Affairs  
Committee (AIPAC) in 1985.[44]

A key figure is Barry Rubin, who has been a senior fellow at WINEP, a  
member of the advisory council of the Social Democrats USA, a  
contributor to Democratiya and a signatory of the American version of  
the Euston Manifesto. Rubin is also the director of the Global  
Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel,  
and editor of its Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). 
[45] An article from MERIA was famously plagiarized  in the British  
Government ‘dodgy dossier’ cited at the UN by Colin Powell in the run- 
up to the Iraq War.[46]

Labour Friends of Iraq

Another dimension of this network is highlighted by the Euston  
Manifesto’s acknowledged links with the Labour Friends of Iraq (LFOI),  
and its director, Gary Kent, a member of the Euston Manifesto Group.

Prior to the Iraq War, Kent was immersed for many years in the  
politics surrounding the Irish Troubles. Dean Godson described him as  
a 'former Troops Out supporter who changed under the influence of  
Democratic Left stalwart Seamus Lynch.'[47]

Kent subsequently became involved with New Consensus, which was  
delicately described by the Irish Times’ Frank Millar as ‘a less-than- 
nationalist Irish peace group.’[48] In 1996, under its later name of  
New Dialogue, the group organised a fringe meeting  which enabled  
David Trimble to become the first unionist leader to attend a Labour  
Party conference.[49]

Later that year Kent became one of the first people in London to meet  
Sean O’Callaghan, a former IRA member and MI5 informant who he had  
been visiting in Maghaberry Prison.[50]  It was ostensibly O’Callaghan  
who had the idea for a pan-unionist unity conference, which Kent  
attended a year later at the home of Viscount Cranborne, the most  
staunchly unionist member of John Major’s cabinet. [51]

When O’Callaghan and Trimble were spotted drinking together in 1998,  
Kent’s briefing to the press helped to conceal the extent of their  
relationship, which would see O’Callaghan became an advisor to the UUP  
leader. O’Callaghan would later describe Kent as "a supposedly left- 
winger who is more right-wing."[52]

In LFOI, Kent has played a remarkably similar role as a link between  
Westminster, the Labour Party and Britain’s local allies  in Iraq. A  
notable example is the Kurdish Regional Government, with which LFOI co- 
hosted the screening of a documentary on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. 
[53] The film was by Gwynne Roberts, who played a key role in exposing  
the Halabja massacre of 1988, but whose later work includes more  
questionable material. In 2001 Roberts reported on allegations that  
Iraq had conducted a nuclear bomb test, claiming that “Iraq is now  
emerging as a nuclear power, causing the threat to peace to be far  
more real than ever before.”[54]

Kent himself has visited Iraqi Kurdistan several times, and recently  
visited Baghdad, where he raised the possibility of Iraq joining the  
Commonwealth.[55]

Two years on

Alan Johnson highlighted the network of institutional links  
surrounding the Euston Manifesto in a piece marking its second  
anniversary in April 2008.[56]

The intellectual and campaigning energies that created the manifesto  
continue to pulse. Go online and look at normblog, Harry’s Place,  
Engage, Labour Friends of Iraq, Democratiya, and the work of all the  
contributing online journals, blogs, signatories, journalists and  
activists.

Johnson also drew attention to a new anthology, Global Politics After  
9/11: The Democratiya Interviews, which he edited at the suggestion of  
Rachel Kleinfeld, a former World Bank consultant who heads the  
Washington-based Truman National Security Project. [57]

In one respect, the book’s contents pointed to a significant  
fracturing of the consensus that had prevailed at the conference of  
the Social Democrats USA five years before. In an interview with  
Johnson, Joshua Muravchik criticized Robert Leiken, who had chaired  
the session on Europe, over his stance on engagement with the Muslim  
Brotherhood.[58]

In a 2007 Foreign Affairs article Leiken had written:

“U.S. policymaking has been handicapped by Washington's tendency to  
see the Muslim Brotherhood -- and the Islamist movement as a whole --  
as a monolith. Policymakers should instead analyze each national and  
local group independently and seek out those that are open to  
engagement. In the anxious and often fruitless search for Muslim  
moderates, policymakers should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood  
presents a notable opportunity.”[59]

This was a significant departure from the Eustonian critique of the  
anti-war left. The Muslim Brotherhood was central to the case that the  
left/Muslim alliance against the Iraq War represented an embrace of  
totalitarianism. Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way  
exemplified the argument:

Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists demonstrated against the 2003  
war, but the only religious group the Stop the War coalition promoted  
was an outfit called the Muslim Association of Britain. Its speakers  
and propaganda appeared at antiwar meetings and its officers co- 
organized the anti-war marches. Most British Muslims new little about  
it because it was an Arab organization and most British Muslims’  
families were from the Indian subcontinent or East Africa. It turned  
out to be the closest Britain had to a branch of the Muslim  
Brotherhood and was, by Twentieth Century standards, a movement of the  
extreme right.[60]

Leiken by contrast, had come to praise “the Brotherhood’s  
collaboration with Scotland Yard in purging jihadists from London’s  
notorious Finsbury Park Mosque.”[61] By 2008, similar views were  
appearing in the pages of the New Republic, a publication which had  
provided several signatories for the US Manifesto. An article called  
‘The Unraveling’ credited the Muslim Brotherhood with turning the tide  
against Al Qaeda.

Most of these clerics and former militants, of course, have not  
suddenly switched to particularly progressive forms of Islam or fallen  
in love with the United States (all those we talked to saw the Iraqi  
insurgency as a defensive jihad), but their anti-Al Qaeda positions  
are making Americans safer. If this is a war of ideas, it is their  
ideas, not the West's, that matter. The U.S. government neither has  
the credibility nor the Islamic knowledge to effectively debate Al  
Qaeda's leaders, but the clerics and militants who have turned against  
them do.[62]

Ironically, this could be seen as a subtler application of the  
Congress for Cultural Freedom template than the one advocated by the  
Social Democrats USA, and implemented in the Euston Manifesto. Perhaps  
it was not the anti-war left who went down a strategic dead end in 2003.

Notes

[1] Introducing the Euston Manifesto, Norman Geras, Comment is free,  
13 April 2006.

[2] Off the Rails, by Paul Christopher, Weekly Worker, 1 June 2006.

[3]. Ibid.

[4] No sects please, you're British, by DD Guttenplan, Comment is  
free, 17 April 2006.

[5] A Few Good Liberals, by William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, 1  
May 2006.

[6] Who Paid the Piper: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War, by Francis  
Stonor Saunders, Granta, 2000, pp 175-180.

[7] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., pp 397-404.

[8] Profile: Social Democrats USA, RightWeb, accessed 17 May 208.

[9] Profile: Elliot Abrams, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008.
[10] Sidney Hook, Political Philosopher, Is Dead at 86, by Richard  
Bernstein, New York Times, 14 July 1989.
[11] National Endowment for Democracy – Sourcewatch, accessed 5 June  
2008.
[12] Profile: Carl Gershman, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008.
  [13] EVERYTHING CHANGED: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the  
Global Left?, Social Democrats USA, accessed 18 May 2008.
[14] Debs’s Heirs Reassemble To Seek Renewed Role as Hawks of Left, By  
Joshua Micah Marshall, Forward, 23. May 2003.
[15] Nicaragua Conversion of a Timely Kind, by Jill Smolowe, Time  
magazine, 21 April 1986.
[16] EVERYTHING CHANGED: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the Global  
Left?, Social Democrats USA, accessed 8 June 2008.
[17] AndyMarkovits.com, accessed 8 June 2008. Jeffrey Herf, Department  
of History, University of Maryland, accessed 8 June 2008.
[18] EVERYTHING CHANGED: What Now for Labor, Liberalism and the Global  
Left?, Social Democrats USA, accessed 8 June 2008.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Book Review: The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and the Politics  
of Global Order, by Michael Allen, Democratiya, Summer 2005.

[21] The Berlin Republic and the Past, by Jeffrey Herf, Democratiya,  
Spring 2008. Why Europe Dislikes America, by Andrei Markovits,  
Democratiya, Summer 2007. Cosmopolitanism vs. the ‘Post-Left’, by  
Andrei Markovits and Gabriel Noah Bram Jr, Democratiya, Spring 2008.  
Looking for Albert Shanker, by Eugenia Kemble, Democratiya, Winter  
2007. Archive, the Life of Tom Kahn, by Rachelle Horowitz,  
Democratiya, Winter 2007. The Truth about Syria, by Barry Rubin,  
Democratiya, Autumn 2007. Confessions at a Funeral, by Barry Rubin,  
Democratiya, Spring 2008.

[22] Interview with Joshua Muravchik/ On Neoconservatism, Democratiya,  
Winter 2007. The Legacy of Michael Harrington: An Exchange, by David  
A. Guberman and Joshua Muravchik, Democratiya, Spring 2008. Interview  
with Paul Berman/Terror and Liberalism, Democratiya, Summer 2006.  
Archive, the Social Democratic Prospect, by Sidney Hook, Democratiya,  
Winter 2005.
[23] The Cultural Cold War: Faust Not the Pied Piper, New Politics,  
vol. 8, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 31, Summer 2001.
[24] The Euston Manifesto, Norman Geras and Nick Cohen, New Statesman,  
17 April 2006.
[25] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., pp 98-99.
[26] The Euston Manifesto, accessed 5 June 2008.
[27] ibid.
[28] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 98.
[29] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 201.
[30] Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 208.
[31] American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto, by Jeffrey Herf et.  
al., eustonmanifesto.org, 12 September 2006.
[32] The New Republic Online: American Liberalism And The Euston  
Manifesto, Jeffrey Herf, eustonmanifesto.org, 10 October 2006.
[33] Profile: Michael Ledeen, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008.
[34] Profile: Elion Cohen, RightWeb, accessed 5 June 2008. Profile:  
Will Marshall, accessed 5 June 2008.
[35]For Bell, see Stonor Saunders, op. cit., p 391. For Laqueur, see  
Stonor Saunders, op. cit., pp 214-215.
  [36] On state-private networks, see Hugh Wilford, The CIA, The  
British Left and the Cold War, Frank Cass, 2003, p148. On flex groups,  
see Flex Power: A Capital Way to Gain Clout, Inside and Out, by Janine  
R. Wedel, Washington Post, 12 December 2004.
[37] Four More Years of Richard Perle? by Janine Wedel, Alternet, 4  
November 2004.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Michael Allen – Sourcewatch, accessed 5 June 2008.

[40] The Euston Manifesto, accessed 5 June 2008.

[41] No sects please, you're British, by DD Guttenplan, Comment is  
free, 17 April 2006.

[42] The Men From JINSA and CSP, by Jason Vest, The Nation, August 15,  
2002.

[43] JINSA Online – Advisory Board, accessed 10 June 2008.

[44] Washington Institute for Near East Policy – Board of Advisors,  
accessed 10 June 2008. On WINEP’s link to AIPAC see Pentagon Office  
Home to Neo-Con Network, by Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, 7 August  
2003.

[45] Barry Rubin, MERIA, accessed 5 June 2008. For his links to the  
Social Democrats USA, see Officers and National Committee Members,  
accessed 5 June 2008.

[46] Blair Acknowledges Flaws in Iraq Dossier, by Glenn Frankel,  
Washington Post, 8 February 2003, via MERIA.

[47] Himself Alone, by Dean Godson, Harper Perennial, 2004, p263.

[48] No consensus over wearing of the shamrock, by Frank Millar, The  
Irish Times, 19 March 1994.

[49] Dean Godson, op. cit., p263.

[50] The Informer, by Sean O'Callaghan, Corgi 1999, p405.

[51] Dean Godson, op. cit., p309. On Cranborne’s unionism, see p122.

[52] Trimble, by Henry McDonald, Bloomsbury, 2000, p289.

[53] Special screening: "The Road To Hell"—Saddam's genocide, by Gary  
Kent, eustonmanifesto.org, 5 November 2006.

[54] Saddam's bomb, Correspondent, BBC News, 2 March 2001.

[55] A City Break in Baghdad, by Gary Kent, Slugger O’Toole, 19 May  
2008.

[56] The Euston moment, by Alan Johnson, Guardian: CiF, 20 April 2008.

[57] Global Politics After 9/11: The Democratiya Interviews, edited by  
Alan Johnson, The Foreign Policy Centre 2007, p.3.

[58] ibid. P.315.

[59] The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood, by Robert S. Leiken and Stephen   
Brooke, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007.

[60] What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way, by Nick Cohen, Harper  
Collins, 2007, p.305.

[61] To Talk or Not To Talk – That is The Question? By Robert Leiken,  
The National Interest, 25 April 2007.

[62] The Unravelling: The jihadist revolt against Bin Laden, by Peter  
Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, The New Republic, 11 June 2008.